Re: Fwd: [I-S] NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News

her real passion – the creation of a national
network to ensure that in the future, you get your news from the
government
----
no surprise ... socialism and jews go hand in hand

NPR does not even come close to representing American interests thus
should not be publicly funded.

On Mar 10, 8:44 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://townhall.com/columnists/TaraServatius/2010/10/25/npr_ceo_vivia...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/32dmtp7
>
> NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News
>
> By Tara Servatius
>
> 10/25/2010
>
> NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News
>
> Last week, National Public Radio CEO Vivian Schiller took a break from
> her crusade for a government takeover of the media to swat a fly. With
> now-former NPR analyst Juan Williams suitably splattered across the
> evening news after politically incorrect comments he made on Fox News,
> Schiller can return to her real passion – the creation of a national
> network to ensure that in the future, you get your news from the
> government in general and NPR in particular.
>
> Schiller could barely contain her rage at Fox News and at Williams last
> week, saying he should discuss his fear of boarding a plane with Muslim
> passengers with "his psychiatrist." Those who understand what is at
> stake saw the Williams/Schiller dust up for what it really was – a
> declaration of war by one of the most powerful women in journalism
> against for-profit, non-liberal media. If Schiller and her liberal
> friends have their way, Fox and its viewers will pay the bill for her
> new government news network.
>
> As Schiller explained in a speech to the NPR board of directors in 2009,
> it is public radio's responsibility to fill the gap in journalism left
> by dying local television stations and newspapers.
>
> Schiller, a former New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power
> players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal
> Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to "reinvent
> journalism." That's how the FTC describes it. The FCC calls what they
> are doing the "Future of Journalism." Free Press, a think tank funded by
> leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it "the new public
> media."
>
> It's all the same thing, a plan to take over local news coverage from
> for-profit television, radio and print media, which Schiller and her
> friends claim is in danger of extinction. These "friends" get together
> regularly with the heads of the FCC and FTC to brainstorm the details in
> government and congressional meetings. These meetings include the
> leaders of all the country's public broadcasting outlets, including PBS,
> the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and American Public Media.
>
> They are beefing up their staffs in local news markets with herds of
> public news reporters to "take over" coverage as commercial media fails.
> Nationwide, this will cost $40 billion to $60 billion over a decade,
> they believe. Their plans, according to the FCC's Future of Media
> report, are to raise this money by taxing for-profit news organizations
> – the ones whose reporting Schiller is supposedly trying to "save." They
> want to charge "spectrum fees" of five percent of broadcast station
> revenues for use of the public spectrum and airwaves, which the
> government controls. They figure that could bring in $1.8 billion a
> year. A one percent tax on all electronic devices like cell phones,
> televisions and laptops could bring in billions more. So would a monthly
> fee on internet subscriptions.
>
> While conservatives were busy arguing that NPR should be defunded in the
> wake of the Williams debacle, Schiller was putting the finishing touches
> on the national infrastructure NPR has launched to deliver this new
> government news product to cities across the nation. A decade ago,
> defunding NPR would have sufficed. To stop Schiller now, Republicans
> would have to defund PBS and CPB as well to have any hope of torpedoing
> her plans to build a nationwide news delivery system in the style of the
> BBC, but on steroids. Schiller imagines a national public print,
> television and radio news leviathan that would compete with the top five
> news companies in the news industry.
>
> "We can create a national network around all of public radio that
> provides the kind of public service that is being not provided by other
> media companies that are suffering," Schiller told Cyberjournalist.net.
> Never mind that her planned confiscation of their revenues will cause
> them more suffering and possibly send them to an early death.
>
> Schiller calls her creation the Public Media Platform, and the left is
> very excited about it. It's a digital network in partnership with all
> the nation's public news providers, built to distribute their news
> locally, regionally and nationally. NPR has already built a
> state-of-the-art internal "wire" service in the style of the Associated
> Press to carry and distribute the news. The Corporation for Public
> Broadcasting funded seven multi-million dollar regional journalism
> centers with news teams to produce and distribute the new public news
> product.
>
> Finally, NPR's Project Argo has launched news sites at 12 NPR stations
> in major cities staffed with local reporters. That's where Soros's
> recent $1.8 million donation to NPR comes in. Those are start-up funds
> for the reporters to generate the public news product.
>
> A May Free Press report describes NPR's Public Media Platform as a first
> step in their plans for a government media takeover. The platform is in
> the early stages, and its purpose is to attract billions more in
> government funding. "We are going to strengthen and bolster our
> representation to Congress and to other entities that can help fund all
> of us," Schiller told the NPR board in her 2009 speech about a public
> media takeover of news reporting.
>
> All of this makes Schiller's very public drop-kick of Williams far more
> than a hissy fit that got out of hand. It was a declaration of war
> against commercial media in general and Fox in particular. Who wins will
> be determined by what voters do at the ballot box in the coming years.
>
> Tara Servatius
>
> Tara Servatius is a writer and radio host from North Carolina.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to
> Individual-Sovereignty-ow...@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
>    Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/join
>    (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
>    Individual-Sovereignty-dig...@yahoogroups.com
>    Individual-Sovereignty-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    Individual-Sovereignty-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Ideas Can Overthrow Regimes

"It is ultimately ideas that determine which way the soldiers point their guns."

Ideas Can Overthrow Regimes
Thursday, March 10, 2011
by Robert P. Murphy

The political upheaval in the Middle East underscores one of the most profound aspects of Ludwig von Mises's worldview: all governments ultimately rely on the consent of the governed.

Although the claim at first sounds preposterous -- who could possibly argue that a dictatorship is subject to the will of the people? -- there is an important sense in which it is true. Mises's insight has ramifications for choosing methods in the struggle for liberty, and it shows the critical importance of educating the masses in sound doctrines.


Mises on Might and Ideology

In his magnum opus, Human Action, Mises explains the connection between might and ideology:

A durable system of government must rest upon an ideology acknowledged by the majority. The "real" factor, the "real forces" that are the foundation of government and convey to the rulers the power to use violence against renitent minority groups are essentially ideological, moral, and spiritual. Rulers who failed to recognize this first principle of government and, relying upon the alleged irresistibility of their armed troops, disdained the spirit and ideas have finally been overthrown by the assault of their adversaries. The interpretation of might as a "real" factor not dependent upon ideologies, quite common to many political and historical books, is erroneous. …

He who interprets might as physical or "real" power to carry on and considers violent action as the very foundation of government, sees conditions from the narrow point of view of subordinate officers in charge of sections of an army or police force. …

However, things are different for the head of the government. He must aim at preservation of the morale of the armed forces and of the loyalty of the rest of the population. For these moral factors are the only "real" elements upon which continuance of his mastery rests. His power dwindles if the ideology that supports it loses force.

With this foundation, Mises later in the book draws a connection between governments and the approval of the masses:

[Classical] liberalism realizes that the rulers, who are always a minority, cannot lastingly remain in office if not supported by the consent of the majority of those ruled. Whatever the system of government may be, the foundation upon which it is built and rests is always the opinion of those ruled that to obey and to be loyal to this government better serves their own interests than insurrection and the establishment of another regime. The majority has the power to do away with an unpopular government and uses this power whenever it becomes convinced that its own welfare requires it.

Even Dictators Rest on Ideology

Many people scoff when they first hear Mises's claims. Surely there is a sense in which a dictator, who violently suppresses all opposition, rules through force and not consent?

Yet the actual behavior of dictators proves the deep truth in Mises's analysis. For example, the very mark of a closed, totalitarian society is that the media are all controlled by the government. Even graffiti challenging the regime is very quickly removed, far more quickly than authorities would clean up something comparable in a relatively open society. The schools serve as indoctrination camps, teaching the next generation about the virtues of the regime. Finally, the supreme ruler might spend hours every week giving long-winded speeches, not explaining how many guns and secret police agents are at his disposal, but on the contrary explaining how fortunate the people are to be taken care of by such a wise and benevolent leader.

These tell-tale signs of a dictatorship all reinforce Mises's observation: the regime can only last if it maintains the illusion that it is beneficial to the masses. Mere physical strength is not sufficient, because it is ultimately ideas that determine which way the soldiers and police point their guns.

We can interpret events in the Middle East through this prism. To understand why Mubarak was toppled relatively easily, in contrast to the bloodshed in Libya, we need to push the analysis deeper and ask why Mubarak lost the support of the army, whereas Gaddafi maintained loyalty on the part of a sizable number of subordinates who were willing to kill and be killed on his behalf.

As Mises explained, such an analysis of "power politics" doesn't primarily concern military statistics on troop strength. Instead, the analysis would focus on the prevailing ideologies animating both the armed forces and the general public who were rising up against the regime.


Lessons for Liberty

Looking through a Misesian lens, there are two important lessons we can draw from the turmoil in the Middle East. First, we see that it is possible to topple a hated regime without resorting to a civil war. Although American commentators are bickering over just how peaceful the Egyptian mobs were, it is undeniable that few people, even six months ago, would have predicted that Mubarak's implosion would occur so spontaneously and with such little loss of life.

The second lesson is the importance of having a sound ideology, so that the masses have a shared vision of how a free society works and what is needed to maintain it. Everyone the world over longs for freedom, and no one enjoys living under a brutal dictatorship. But if Egyptians believe that the historical success of the United States came from its periodic elections ­ as opposed to its relative respect for the institution of private property ­ then they are in for a rude awakening.

Both lessons underscore the critical importance of educating for liberty. If enough people understand freedom and withdraw their consent, an oppressive regime will topple under its own weight, as Étienne de la Boétie described so eloquently.

Yet to put something durable and superior in the old regime's place, the common man must also know more than mere slogans like "liberty" and "democracy." It's not necessary that the majority become formally trained in political science and economics, but it is necessary that "conventional wisdom" is indeed wise on such matters. Unfortunately, too many "freedom fighters" around the world seem to think the problem with oppressive governments is the specific personalities at the top, as opposed to the institutions themselves.


Conclusion

Educational institutions such as the Mises Institute (including the online Mises Academy) have always been in the business of educating for liberty, and with the Internet their outreach is truly global. If the human striving for freedom is ever to be realized, a necessary first step will be promoting a sound ideology.


Robert Murphy is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, where he teaches at the Mises Academy. He runs the blog Free Advice and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the Study Guide to Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, the Human Action Study Guide, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, and his newest book, Lessons for the Young Economist.

http://mises.org/daily/5105/Ideas-Can-Overthrow-Regimes

The Coming Rout

The Coming Rout
by Chris Martenson

There's a scenario that could play out between May and September in which commodities (including my beloved silver) and the stock and bond markets could all sell off between 20% and 40%. The trigger will be the cessation of QE II and a multi-month pause before QE III.

This is a reversal in my thinking from the outright inflationary 'buy with both hands' bent that I have held for the past two years. Even though it's quite a speculative analysis at this early stage, it is a possibility that we must consider.

Important note: This is a short-term scenario that stems from my trading days, so if you are a long-term holder of a core position in gold and silver, as am I, nothing has changed in my extended outlook for these metals. The fiscal and monetary path we are on has a very high likelihood of failure over the coming decade, and I see nothing that shakes that view.

But over the next 3-6 months, I have a few specific concerns.

It's time to build on the idea I planted in the Insider article entitled Blame the Victim (February 28, 2011) where I speculated on the idea that the Fed might be forced to end its quantitative easing programs, almost certainly because of behind-the-scenes pressure.

Here's what I said:

How I read [the Fed's recent propaganda tour] is that the Fed is taking some heat for its inflationary policies, mainly behind closed doors, and it is trying to do what it can – with words – to soothe the situation. Perhaps China is making noises, or perhaps Brazil's finance minister is making the phone lines feeding the Eccles building smoke ominously, or perhaps it is internal pressure coming from politicians with restless voters. Or all three.

The big risk here is that the Fed will be forced by this rising pressure to discontinue the QE program in June at the normal ending of the QE II efforts. Couple that with a possible federal showdown over the debt ceiling right at the same time, and you have the makings for a massive fireworks display, possibly involving derivative mortars bursting in air.

At the time, I speculated that all of the Fed's pronouncements about inflation being almost nonexistent were actually signs that the Fed was taking some behind-the-scenes heat for the inflation its policies was creating. And I worried about what would happen if the Fed were to end the QE program in June.

Let's just say it won't be pretty.

Everything would tank. Stocks, bonds, and commodities. All of the risk assets that have been unnaturally supported by a flood of liquidity, too-low interest rates, and thin-air base money would give up those ill-gotten gains. Gold might behave a bit differently, because along with these market declines will come an enormous amount of uncertainty about the financial system itself, usually a condition for higher gold prices. So I expect gold to correct somewhat, but not nearly as much as everything else, and it could even gain.

The story is, admittedly, getting more confusing by the week, with some calling for hyperinflation and some calling for massive, outright deflation. I am trying to surf the probabilities and stay one step ahead of whatever curve balls are coming our way.

The basic idea is this: The Fed has been dumping roughly $4 billion of thin-air money into the US markets each trading day since November 2010. The markets, all of them, are higher than they would be without this money. $4 billion per trading day is an enormous amount of money. It's gigantic by historical standards. As soon as the QE program ends, the markets will have to subsist on a lot less money and liquidity, and the result is almost perfectly predictable.

Hello, downdraft.

The markets are quite substantially elevated due to the efforts of the Fed. T, and then some, is quite likely to be rapidly eliminated as soon as the QE program has ended.

It's really that simple.

To make the story even more difficult to follow, the Fed has been sending out teams of PR agents in an effort to guide the markets with their words.

First, on March 2, 2011 Bernanke said this:

Bernanke Signals No Rush to Tighten When Asset-Buying Ends

March 2, 2011

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke signaled he's in no rush to tighten credit after the Fed finishes an expansion of record monetary stimulus, seeing little inflation risk and still-slow job growth.

A surge in the prices of oil and other commodities probably won't generate a lasting rise in inflation, Bernanke told lawmakers yesterday in semiannual testimony on monetary policy. A "sustained period of stronger job creation" is needed to ensure a solid recovery, and the Fed's benchmark rate will stay low for an "extended period," he said.

The "no rush to tighten credit" statement is a signal that the Fed will neither raise rates at the end of the QE program nor perform reverse POMOs where it reels cash back in and pushes MBS and/or Treasury paper back out.

Upon the cessation of the QE efforts, and the cessation of $4 billion a day in Treasury buying pressure, it's a safe bet that market interest rates will rise. Bernanke is at least on record as saying that if this happens, it won't be because the Fed has taken the lead.

Bernanke was being a little bit sloppy in his statements, because stopping QE will serve to tighten credit simply because there will be a lot less liquidity sloshing around the system. It's a situation where the absence of excess is the same as the presence of tightness, if that makes any sense.

Then on March 5th, a much stronger and clearer signal was given, confirming my worries:

Fed Policy Makers Signal Abrupt End to Bond Purchases in June

March 4, 2011

Federal Reserve policy makers are signaling they favor an abrupt end to $600 billion in Treasury purchases in June, jettisoning their prior strategy of gradually pulling back on intervention in bond markets.

"I don't see a lot of gain to reverting to a tapering approach," Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart told reporters yesterday. "I don't think that is necessary," Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser said last month.

Whoa. This is important news. Not only a cessation of QE, but the possibility of a sudden stop is being telegraphed. This will change everything.

The old saying 'sell in May and go away' might never be truer than this year, although with this sort of a warning, the cautious investor may want to get a head start on things and sell in March or April.

For some time there have been rumors that the Fed has been splitting into factions, with some of the inner team becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the QE program and its effects. But so far they've either spoken in code to reveal their displeasure or quietly resigned. So we're pretty sure there's an admirable level of support within the Fed for ending QE, and it has now bubbled to the surface and reached the public arena.

Of course, there's some form of gobbledy-gook reasoning being floated to justify the plan for a sudden stop rather than a gentle wind-down, and it involves the distinction between 'stocks and flows' (from the same article as above):

Fed staff members, such as Brian Sack, the New York Fed official in charge of carrying out the bond buying, have argued the total amount, or stock, of securities the Fed has announced it will make has more impact on longer-term interest rates than the timing of those purchases. That's a view now held by several members on the Federal Open Market Committee, including the chairman.

"We learned in the first quarter of last year, when we ended our previous program, that the markets had anticipated that adequately, and we didn't see any major impact on interest rates," Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee during his March 1 semiannual monetary-policy testimony. "It's really the total amount of holdings, rather than the flow of new purchases, that affects the level of interest rates."

Fed Vice Chairman Janet Yellen supported that perspective, saying at a monetary policy forum in New York last week that "the stock view won out over the flow view."

The idea that Brian Sack, a 40-year-old economist with a PhD from MIT, is winning the day in the argument of "stocks over flows" is somewhat troubling to me. MIT is a quantitative shop, home to some very brilliant people, but how markets will actually respond is another specialty altogether, one that requires a bit of on-the-street experience. Markets have a bad habit of not being logical, not fitting neatly into tidy formulas, and ignoring things like 'stocks and flows.'

I'll go even further. I'll take the other side of that bet and opine that the flows are much more important than the stocks, because it is the flows that support the continued budget deficits of the US government – which, it should be noted, will still be with us each and every month long after June 2011. Those deficits are baked into the cake and will require in excess of $125 billion in new Treasury sales each and every month.

Who will buy all the Treasury bonds after the Fed steps aside? That is unclear. If there are not enough buyers at these artificially inflated prices, then the price will have to fall until sufficient buyers can be found. Falling bond prices are at the other side of the financial see-saw from rising bond yields; one goes down while the other goes up, and the Fed has been pressing firmly down on yields for a while via the QE II program. When that's over, pressure will be reduced and yields will rise.

So what to do? For those concerned enough about this possible scenario to consider taking action, please see Part II of this article (free executive summary; paid enrollment required to access). In it, I predict the extent to which stocks, commodities, Treasury bonds and precious metals prices may be impacted in the near term. I also detail the key indicators to look out for in order to determine if and when this scenario is unfolding – as well as recommended strategies to preserve capital during this corrective phase.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/martensonreport/coming-rout

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News

http://townhall.com/columnists/TaraServatius/2010/10/25/npr_ceo_vivian_schiller_key_architect_of_fcc_govt_takeover_of_the_news/page/full/
or
http://tinyurl.com/32dmtp7

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News

By Tara Servatius

10/25/2010

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News

Last week, National Public Radio CEO Vivian Schiller took a break from
her crusade for a government takeover of the media to swat a fly. With
now-former NPR analyst Juan Williams suitably splattered across the
evening news after politically incorrect comments he made on Fox News,
Schiller can return to her real passion – the creation of a national
network to ensure that in the future, you get your news from the
government in general and NPR in particular.

Schiller could barely contain her rage at Fox News and at Williams last
week, saying he should discuss his fear of boarding a plane with Muslim
passengers with "his psychiatrist." Those who understand what is at
stake saw the Williams/Schiller dust up for what it really was – a
declaration of war by one of the most powerful women in journalism
against for-profit, non-liberal media. If Schiller and her liberal
friends have their way, Fox and its viewers will pay the bill for her
new government news network.

As Schiller explained in a speech to the NPR board of directors in 2009,
it is public radio's responsibility to fill the gap in journalism left
by dying local television stations and newspapers.

Schiller, a former New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power
players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal
Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to "reinvent
journalism." That's how the FTC describes it. The FCC calls what they
are doing the "Future of Journalism." Free Press, a think tank funded by
leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it "the new public
media."

It's all the same thing, a plan to take over local news coverage from
for-profit television, radio and print media, which Schiller and her
friends claim is in danger of extinction. These "friends" get together
regularly with the heads of the FCC and FTC to brainstorm the details in
government and congressional meetings. These meetings include the
leaders of all the country's public broadcasting outlets, including PBS,
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and American Public Media.

They are beefing up their staffs in local news markets with herds of
public news reporters to "take over" coverage as commercial media fails.
Nationwide, this will cost $40 billion to $60 billion over a decade,
they believe. Their plans, according to the FCC's Future of Media
report, are to raise this money by taxing for-profit news organizations
– the ones whose reporting Schiller is supposedly trying to "save." They
want to charge "spectrum fees" of five percent of broadcast station
revenues for use of the public spectrum and airwaves, which the
government controls. They figure that could bring in $1.8 billion a
year. A one percent tax on all electronic devices like cell phones,
televisions and laptops could bring in billions more. So would a monthly
fee on internet subscriptions.

While conservatives were busy arguing that NPR should be defunded in the
wake of the Williams debacle, Schiller was putting the finishing touches
on the national infrastructure NPR has launched to deliver this new
government news product to cities across the nation. A decade ago,
defunding NPR would have sufficed. To stop Schiller now, Republicans
would have to defund PBS and CPB as well to have any hope of torpedoing
her plans to build a nationwide news delivery system in the style of the
BBC, but on steroids. Schiller imagines a national public print,
television and radio news leviathan that would compete with the top five
news companies in the news industry.

"We can create a national network around all of public radio that
provides the kind of public service that is being not provided by other
media companies that are suffering," Schiller told Cyberjournalist.net.
Never mind that her planned confiscation of their revenues will cause
them more suffering and possibly send them to an early death.

Schiller calls her creation the Public Media Platform, and the left is
very excited about it. It's a digital network in partnership with all
the nation's public news providers, built to distribute their news
locally, regionally and nationally. NPR has already built a
state-of-the-art internal "wire" service in the style of the Associated
Press to carry and distribute the news. The Corporation for Public
Broadcasting funded seven multi-million dollar regional journalism
centers with news teams to produce and distribute the new public news
product.

Finally, NPR's Project Argo has launched news sites at 12 NPR stations
in major cities staffed with local reporters. That's where Soros's
recent $1.8 million donation to NPR comes in. Those are start-up funds
for the reporters to generate the public news product.

A May Free Press report describes NPR's Public Media Platform as a first
step in their plans for a government media takeover. The platform is in
the early stages, and its purpose is to attract billions more in
government funding. "We are going to strengthen and bolster our
representation to Congress and to other entities that can help fund all
of us," Schiller told the NPR board in her 2009 speech about a public
media takeover of news reporting.

All of this makes Schiller's very public drop-kick of Williams far more
than a hissy fit that got out of hand. It was a declaration of war
against commercial media in general and Fox in particular. Who wins will
be determined by what voters do at the ballot box in the coming years.

Tara Servatius

Tara Servatius is a writer and radio host from North Carolina.

------------------------------------

Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to
Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/join
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
   Individual-Sovereignty-digest@yahoogroups.com
   Individual-Sovereignty-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   Individual-Sovereignty-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone
on this mailing list (libertarian-364@meetup.com)
http://www.meetup.com/libertarian-364/
This message was sent by bruce (majors.bruce@gmail.com) from
Washington D.C. Libertarian Party Meetup.
To learn more about bruce, visit his/her member profile:
http://www.meetup.com/libertarian-364/members/10075860/
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here:
http://www.meetup.com/libertarian-364/settings/
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: Yaron Brook on "Stossel"!

Dear Subscriber: Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Center, will appear on Fox Business Network's "Stossel" program tonight, Thursday, March 10, 2011. Dr. Brook will discuss the proper role of government. The program airs at 9 p.m. and 12 midnight, eastern time. If you do not get Fox Business Network, don't worry. The show will go up at Hulu.com two weeks after airing. ARC media # # # ARC on: ARC sites: Ayn Rand Center Voices for Reason ARCTV Principles of a Free Society

Copyright © 2011 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved. Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions. If you would l

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.